rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 The question makes you uncomfortable, then? OK, I'll answer your question. I believe that, as with all other important decisions and initiatives, the Brethren deliberated, then sought and received revelation, before acting. You see, I believe in an ongoing, continuous and constant flow of revelation coming to the servants of God, not just an occasional burst here in there, as in once in 1918, and never again until 1978, and not since then. No, it doesn't make me uncomfortable but good dialogue requires that you respond rather than just asking me a question. I believe that when a prophet receives revelation he is supposed to share it with the church and the world. That's my understanding of a prophet's calling based on scripture and church teachings. So, I don't know if revelation has been received in the time-frame you specified because if it has been, they aren't telling us and they aren't sharing it.
HappyJackWagon Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 But not too strong to publicly denounce and criticize an action undertaken by the anointed servants of God.It's called Loyal Opposition. There's a place for it. The members at Mountain Meadows would have benefited from a little loyal opposition.
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Of course it matters - in due time and done in wisdom and order. But the policy is that a child of a gay parent in a relationship cannot be blessed, baptized, or ordained. Period. No opportunity there to enter "wisdom and order".
Jeanne Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 More and more, I'm wondering whether some of those shedding public tears over the supposed plight of the children are really so much concerned about the children as they are that their own friends entrenched in homosexual behavior now find it less likely than ever that their favorite sin will one day be declared unsinful and that samge-sex "marriage" will gradually be assimilated willy-nilly into Mormon culture.Oh no one is worried about the children..we just don't want to embarrass the church..and as for revelation, conference was just a little over 30 days ago, why wouldn't the Lord reveal this before now?? 1
mfbukowski Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I understand. Personally I'd have one heck of a time giving a temple recommend interview when my definition of apostasy was different from the brethren's. I truly hope you can reconcile this.Indeed that is the problem. I will now shut up. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Are we changing our baptismal policies across the board then? Because in the mission field they'll baptize just about anyone who is willing and over age 8This is absolute garbage. In the mission field, I interviewed candidates for baptism, and I didn't act like that. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Oh no one is worried about the children..we just don't want to embarrass the church..and as for revelation, conference was just a little over 30 days ago, why wouldn't the Lord reveal this before now?? Because they never expected this policy to be revealed at all. 1
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) But not too strong to publicly denounce and criticize an action undertaken by the anointed servants of God. First, the anointed servants of God haven't actually spoken to us about this. I recognize the claim that PA speaks for them but the public affairs folks are NOT anointed servants of God. Our prophet, seers, and revelators have a pulpit and can explain this change to us if they'd like. Second, they are not infallible. When I see something that is in contradiction with the gospel itself - I'm going to speak out. We're called upon to do so. I can't ignore the previous prophetic injunctions because PA released a statement about a handbook change. Sorry - I know you value the words of Otterson & Co. as equal to God himself. Edited November 6, 2015 by rockpond
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 All policies have latitude, the handbook is not self enforcing.Yes. There is the latitude to ignore the plain language of the handbook. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 This is absolute garbage. In the mission field, I interviewed candidates for baptism, and I didn't act like that.Congratulations! If you didn't do it then it must have never happened anywhere at any time. I've witnessed MANY situations like Gray described.
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Fine but that is a contradiction. I guess you have to live with it. Which "testimony" is right- the old one or the new one? Your service to others has to suffer if you are that ambivalent over this, and certainly if someone asks you to explain the church position, you will not be able to help them. This is not about you, it is about your duty in leadership. Not sure what you're talking about... old or new testimony? If my service suffers, they can release me. I don't have a duty to defend this policy change.
Walden Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 So it really doesn't matter if kids get blessed, baptized, and ordained. Interesting position.No doubt, if that's the case, then everyone should just eat, drink and be merry and forget about holding to the iron rod in this lifetime....they'll have a chance to make up for it in the hereafter.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 It's called Loyal Opposition. There's a place for it. The members at Mountain Meadows would have benefited from a little loyal opposition.President James E. Faust, who, as a longtime member of the Democratic Party, probably went against the grain politically of some Mormons, had this to say about your notion of "loyal opposition" in a Church setting: In some legislative assemblies of the world, there are some groups termed the “loyal opposition.” I find no such principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior gave us this solemn warning: “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). The Lord made it clear that in the presiding quorums every decision “must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions” (D&C 107:27). This means that after frank and open discussion decisions are reached in council under the direction of the presiding officer, who has the ultimate authority to decide. That decision is then sustained, because our unity comes from full agreement with righteous principles and general response to the operation of the Spirit of God.Free discussion and expression are encouraged in the Church. Certainly the open expressions in most fast and testimony meetings, or Sunday School, Relief Society, and priesthood meetings attest to that principle. However, the privilege of free expression should operate within limits. In 1869, George Q. Cannon explained the limits of individual expression:“A friend … wished to know whether we … considered an honest difference of opinion between a member of the Church and the Authorities of the Church was apostasy. … We replied that … we could conceive of a man honestly differing in opinion from the Authorities of the Church and yet not be an apostate; but we could not conceive of a man publishing these differences of opinion and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce them upon the people to produce division and strife and to place the acts and counsels of the Authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light, and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term” (Gospel Truth, sel. Jerreld L. Newquist, 2 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, 2:276–77).Among the activities considered apostate to the Church include when members “(1) repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; (2) persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority; or (3) continue to follow the teachings of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority” (General Handbook of Instructions, 1989, p. 10-3).Those men and women who persist in publicly challenging basic doctrines, practices, and establishment of the Church sever themselves from the Spirit of the Lord and forfeit their right to place and influence in the Church. Members are encouraged to study the principles and the doctrines of the Church so that they understand them. Then, if questions arise and there are honest differences of opinion, members are encouraged to discuss these matters privately with priesthood leaders.There is a certain arrogance in thinking that any of us may be more spiritually intelligent, more learned, or more righteous than the Councils called to preside over us. Those Councils are more in tune with the Lord than any individual persons they preside over, and the individual members of the Councils are generally guided by those Councils. 4
Damien the Leper Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 At least we know that if the church tries to recast or soften the blow that this policy is not of God.
Jeanne Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Because they never expected this policy to be revealed at all.Exactly...I am beginning to think someone got bored and decided to play with the handbook...
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 No, it doesn't make me uncomfortable but good dialogue requires that you respond rather than just asking me a question. I believe that when a prophet receives revelation he is supposed to share it with the church and the world. That's my understanding of a prophet's calling based on scripture and church teachings. So, I don't know if revelation has been received in the time-frame you specified because if it has been, they aren't telling us and they aren't sharing it.When they do share it -- as in clear teachings against same-sex marriage -- you are just as apt to murmur as not. 1
Walden Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 At least we know that if the church tries to recast or soften the blow that this policy is not of God.Like they did with the priesthood ban? 1
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 When they do share it -- as in clear teachings against same-sex marriage -- you are just as apt to murmur as not. They haven't shared a revelation on same-sex marriage. And I don't think they ever will. If they did, I'd pray about it to get my confirmation.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 First, the anointed servants of God haven't actually spoken to us about this. I recognize the claim that PA speaks for them but the public affairs folks are NOT anointed servants of God. Our prophet, seers, and revelators have a pulpit and can explain this change to us if they'd like. Second, they are not infallible. When I see something that is in contradiction with the gospel itself - I'm going to speak out. We're called upon to do so. I can't ignore the previous prophetic injunctions because PA released a statement about a handbook change. Sorry - I know you value the words of Otterson & Co. as equal to God himself.When a provision is placed in the handbook, it is done so under the direction of the First Presidency acting in council with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They are not required to have you personally sign off on it for it to be divinely directed -- and binding upon the Church.
Gray Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 And I will counter with this scriptural passage: By the way, that is in the Standard Works. And under your logic, we must unavoidably assume that nothing the Brethren have ever uttered since the last revelation was added to the Doctrine and Covenants has ever been given "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost." Of course, that would be an absurd assumption. That passage contains a disclaimer big enough to drive a truck through. HBL's point seems to have been that the standard works are the quality check for the teachings of leaders. In any case, your argument is as much with the prophet Harold B Lee as it is with me.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 They haven't shared a revelation on same-sex marriage. And I don't think they ever will. If they did, I'd pray about it to get my confirmation.So we're back to the same conundrum -- because the teaching is not in a book with leather binding and gilded pages you feel free to reject it.
Damien the Leper Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Like they did with the priesthood ban?Don't even get me started on that disaster. That was rogues running amock. Edited November 6, 2015 by Valentinus
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 That passage contains a disclaimer big enough to drive a truck through. HBL's point seems to have been that the standard works are the quality check for the teachings of leaders. In any case, your argument is as much with the prophet Harold B Lee as it is with me. I think I'm reading President Lee for comprehension. I don't think you are. President Lee would not have denied that if a prophet speaks when guided by the Holy Ghost, it is revelation -- and scripture.
Gray Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) This is absolute garbage. In the mission field, I interviewed candidates for baptism, and I didn't act like that. I don't think I said anything about what you did, Scott. But we've been pretty fast and loose with baptisms, traditionally. Edited November 6, 2015 by Gray 1
Gray Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) President James E. Faust, who, as a longtime member of the Democratic Party, probably went against the grain politically of some Mormons, had this to say about your notion of "loyal opposition" in a Church setting: James E. Faust was inspired when he said that, but Harold B. Lee was not? How do you differentiate? Edited November 6, 2015 by Gray
Recommended Posts